Recent years have witnessed explosive growth in the use of portable electronic devices, many of which include one or more types of voice and/or data communications capabilities. Perhaps the most visible examples of such devices are the virtually omnipresent cellular wireless telephones and personal communications devices. In the U.S. alone, approximately 100 million such devices are commonly in use. In addition, many pocket- or palm-sized devices originally directed to and used primarily for note-taking, personal information management, scheduling and similar activities have been augmented with wireless communications facilities for exchanging information—including exchanges over networks such as the Internet. In other aspects, portable communications devices now include laptop and other portable computers adapted to provide wireless voice and data communications access equivalent in most ways to computers having wired or optical network connections.
Though such widespread use of communications-enabled portable electronic devices has greatly expanded choice and efficiencies in personal and business contexts, such use has not been without some sacrifice in safety to users. In respect of wireless telephones, numerous examples have been reported of accidents occurring while users have been driving automobiles or other vehicles. The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in furtherance of its mission to seek ways to save lives and reduce economic and other traffic-related losses, has issued a report entitled An Investigation of the Safety Implications of Wireless Communications in Vehicles—available at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injurv/research/wireless/. As noted in the NHTSA report, there is a body of evidence supporting cellular telephone use as a growing factor in automobile crashes. (In a manner similar to usage in the cited NHTSA report, the term cellular telephone (or cellular phone) will be used to indicate not only now-traditional cellular telephones, but also others in the full range of portable electronic devices having communications or other functionality requiring user attention beyond passive listening.)
Because driving of automobiles while using cellular telephones and similar devices can require a level of skill and care not achievable under all driving circumstances, a number of governmental entities have enacted statutes or ordinances prohibiting or limiting use of cellular telephones by drivers. Conditions under which such restrictions on cellular telephone use apply can vary from one location to another, and may also include restrictions such as those based on time-of-day or day-of-week considerations.
While not the subject of governmental action, other restrictions on use of cellular telephones may be desired, e.g., by parents of teenage children with respect to times or places in which cellular phones may be used. Thus, a parent may deem it appropriate to limit use of a cellular phone by a teenage neophyte driver to reduce distractions from the driving task at hand. In addition, individuals seeking to fully comply with governmental or other restrictions may find it difficult to associate particular restrictions with specific locations, times or vehicle operational parameters.
Heretofore, enforcement of governmental or other restrictions on cellular telephone use has been difficult and lacking in uniformity. Indeed, efforts to promote safety in the use of cellular telephones has been largely limited to cautionary warnings and devising ways to reduce the distracting effects of dialing calls or otherwise manipulating electronic equipment controls. See, for example, “Delphi Attacks Car-Phone Safety Issue,” Information Week, Jan. 15, 2001, p. 30, and “Cell phone regulations: More talk than action,” The Star-Ledger, Jan. 22, 2001, p. 15.
Location-based controls, such as those using global positioning satellite (GPS) functionality, have previously been applied to aspects of vehicle operation, e.g., engine settings or the turning on of operating lights on a vehicle in accordance with changes in location. See, for example, U.S. Pat. No. 5,247,440 issued Sep. 21, 1993 to Capurka, et al. In a related manner, U.S. Pat. No. 5,223,844 issued Jun. 29, 1993 to Mansell discloses use of GPS-derived location information and vehicle status information in reporting to a centralized control center. See further, H. Koshima, et al, “Personal Locator Services Emerge,” IEEE Spectrum, February, 2000, pp. 41-48; and E. A. Bretz, “X marks the spot, maybe,” IEEE Spectrum, April, 2000, pp. 26-36.
One attempt at controlling cell phone use pursued by Bluelinx, Inc. applies a local fixed-position radio source (using well-known Bluetooth technologies) to adjust or switch off cell phones in a defined area. See further, http://www.bluelinx.com and “Taking the Offensive Against Cell Phones,” The New York Times, Jan. 11, 2001, p. Gland G7. The latter reference also describes efforts to discourage use of cell phones by employing local jamming techniques, even at the expense of restricting emergency service calling.
Such prior art location monitoring and control techniques have not readily permitted control of cell phone use for users in transit from place to place, nor has it provided desired flexibility in dealing with emergency conditions or in permitting use in accordance with a range of exceptions to otherwise applicable control regimes.
There exists a need, therefore, for flexible control mechanisms and processes for automatically restricting use of cellular telephones (and other electronic communications devices) in accordance with health, safety, or other management or governmental directives, or in accordance with user (or other) preferences.